The Lockout Thread Part I

I hate the owners. They are not looking for a deal. This is union busting pure and simple. It is ever possible for the super-rich to conduct themselves in a non-abusive manner towards the rest of the world?

I agree with you. This is a concerted effort to crush the union. And for that, I believe decertification and taking this to the courts has become necessary.

Another option for Fehr -- a worst-case scenario for any hockey fan -- would be decertifying the NHLPA. But that’s a complex procedure that guarantees the players nothing, and guarantees not only no hockey for this season, but likely next as well.

Decertification isn't a word thrown around the stick rack very often. It is, however, a word that is gaining some steam among the players. Can decertifying the union be the big trump card Fehr has had tucked away for a rainy day? This is the nuclear option that Goodenow didn't choose in 2004.

The purpose of decertifying would be to eliminate Bettman's negotiating partner. Without a functioning PA, it’s the players’ hope that an owners’ lockout would be deemed illegal and instantly lifted. Dissolving the unions also dissolves the salary cap, linkage, escrow, salary arbitration, rookie cap, you name it. The owners could argue decertifying jeopardizes existing contracts. But some owners, such as the Pittsburgh Penguins’ Mario Lemieux or Los Angeles Kings’ Philip Anschutz, might not like the idea of losing Sidney Crosby to the Rangers or Jonathan Quick to the Leafs when hockey finally returns, and the players would obviously argue they have valid contracts that should be honoured.

You can forget the NHL draft as well. Projected top picks Nathan McKinnon and Seth Jones would simply go to the highest bidder. With the exception of unrestricted free agency, everything else would be deemed illegal in the eyes of the courts. When sports deals are negotiated in good faith, it’s called a CBA. When they aren't, it’s called price fixing. Price fixing leads to accusations of antitrust, and antitrust is a word that doesn't make any billionaire sports-club owner feel warm and fuzzy.

The mere threat of accusing baseball owners of anticompetitive behaviour or unfair business practice paved the way for Fehr's legendary reputation in baseball, and is the sole reason why baseball remains without a salary cap today. Fehr would look for the courts to expedite the process, and in the blink of the eye we could be looking at a level of animosity we've never seen before. The 2004-05 labour fight we watched will pale in comparison to the Armageddon we'll see if this is the path Fehr chooses next.

There's also the chance that decertification is branded as a sham tactic by the courts, in which case the owners would declare an impasse. When that happens, the last offered CBA (by the league) becomes binding, and players refusing to play under that would be declared to be on strike. With the exception of a very small number who would get massive KHL offers, there are very few players who could get more money elsewhere.

In order to have an impasse declaration declared valid by the NLRB, the NHL would have to show that they were negotiating in good faith and that the NHLPA was not. I won't say that's a slam dunk, but consider:
- The NHLPA reportedly didn't ask for any information on realignment, but simply rejected the realignment proposal
- The NHL made overtures to the NHLPA during last season, and was told repeatedly that the PA would not negotiate or talk at all during the season
- The NHL made the first offer
- The NHL's last offer was very similar to the just-expired CBA
- The NHLPA's counteroffers apparently involved no numbers being run, and were loose notes on paper
- The NHLPA just made only the second actual proposal, while the NHL has made four

If the NHLPA were to attempt decertification and have it rejected, it wouldn't take much for the NLRB to side with the NHL.

The update popped up on my Facebook wall just as I was logging in, so I somehow got the first comment on their Facebook post. I think I described the feeling in Columbus pretty well when I simply said "**** you, NHL - signed, a Blue Jacket fan since their inception".

They claim we'll get the ASG back in the future, but it will be at least two years with the Olympics being next year. Take this as it is - another huge step back for our franchise and it's fanbase.

"To be out this long, for a game that was thriving, to be doing this kind of damage to the league makes no sense to us as players," said Whitney. "To me, it just shows a lack of respect for the game by the people in charge. They’re not really hockey people, they didn’t grow up loving the game of hockey."

"To be out this long, for a game that was thriving, to be doing this kind of damage to the league makes no sense to us as players," said Whitney. "To me, it just shows a lack of respect for the game by the people in charge. They’re not really hockey people, they didn’t grow up loving the game of hockey."

Who hired Fehr? I am so tired of players crying about how they want to be playing and it is all the owners fault.

I can't remember the exact circumstance, but it was a union-wide process after the last lockout ... the idea being that they wanted someone in place who wouldn't take such a loss on their behalf at the next bargaining session, which explains Fehr's tactics thus far. They saw what he had done for the players in the other major sports, and wanted the same thing. Now, with the change of heart, one has to wonder if it's sheer frustration in wanting to get back on the ice, or if it's the new generation of players having a different outlook than did the ones in 2005.

One of the best quotes I've seen thus far, as it is pretty much a summation of the Fehr/Bettman dynamic.

In what way? I didn't see much about a dynamic between the two.

What I saw in that article, however, was a fairly smart guy who was unloading on the owners. His take on contract mobility is one that I share. Having said that, I haven't seen jack come from the players on anything resembling a solution. It's focused around building a system in which the players can get to every last little crumb of revenue it can, while giving us the illusion they give a crap about the financial state of teams like the CBJ. They just want more money in the CBJ's hands to pay the players or they want no cap so that the Rangers or Leafs could start to play 100 million on players. They don't give a crap which option is went with. They just want every scrap of revenue they can get their grubby mitts on. This isn't about what a fair amount is. To the NHLPA, "fair" is no profit at all for the owners. Any owner. The NHLPA also doesn't give a crap about the non-union workers in each organization. After all the players are the talent and a season ticket rep is just a scab working for the oppressor.

This work stoppage is just an extension of what his happening on a global scale.

I think this is the final straw in the camel's back. Many people will still hold out hope because the last season wasn't cancelled until mid-February, but I don't think the NHL will wait as long to cancel it this time around. I'm thinking there are maybe 3-4 weeks left for them to get their stuff together, or things will completely fall apart.

As of now, you're starting to see many of the big name guys start looking to play elsewhere (Crosby, Stamkos to name two), and that's a major sign. What it takes at this point is one side completely caving and coming down to the other side's standards. That isn't going to happen any time soon.

What I saw in that article, however, was a fairly smart guy who was unloading on the owners. His take on contract mobility is one that I share. Having said that, I haven't seen jack come from the players on anything resembling a solution. It's focused around building a system in which the players can get to every last little crumb of revenue it can, while giving us the illusion they give a crap about the financial state of teams like the CBJ. They just want more money in the CBJ's hands to pay the players or they want no cap so that the Rangers or Leafs could start to play 100 million on players. They don't give a crap which option is went with. They just want every scrap of revenue they can get their grubby mitts on. This isn't about what a fair amount is. To the NHLPA, "fair" is no profit at all for the owners. Any owner. The NHLPA also doesn't give a crap about the non-union workers in each organization. After all the players are the talent and a season ticket rep is just a scab working for the oppressor.

This work stoppage is just an extension of what his happening on a global scale.

Yes, the work stoppage is an extension of what is happening in the world. It's called capitalism.

Players, union or otherwise, are entitled to negoatiate for the best deal, same as any other economic actor. Now, if you'd like to go to a non-union league with no CBA, let's see how that would work out...

1. Top players getting an even bigger share.
2. Lesser players getting a much lower share.
3. Top teams amassing all-star squads while bottom teams scratch to survive--even worse than the present system that subsidizes the franchises not blessed to be in a market with 5 million plus potential consumers.

Let's not delude ourselves--the Jackets don't exist in a purely capitalistic market because the Jackets will never command a big TV contract in the market they are in or the other types of supplemental revenue streams that would be necessary to bring in top talent. With no draft lottery and without CBA requirements making those drafted players stay the property of their team for a period of time, the Jackets would find themselves in even worse shape. (Oh, did we also forget about the huge taxpayer subsidies that even make this team vaguely close to financially viable?)

It isn't an accident that the league with the best revenue sharing is the most competitive--the NFL. It also isn't an accident that a league with no salary cap is one of the most difficult for teams to compete--the MLB (Note, however, that those teams can be very profitable because of the benefits of the luxury tax system--there was an article a few years back showing the lowly Pirates and Marlins were turning quite a profit. Great news for the owners, not great news for the fans.) So, free markets in sports leagues are not ideal. Having a union that is insisting on more revenue sharing (gasp!) and a group of owners demanding limitations on salary is quite ideal for Jackets fans. Until, of course, one or both sides goes to far and kills the season.

It is pretty clear who the problem is and it is Gary Bettman. This incompetent boob is now 0-for-3 in CBA negotiations. He's lost significant time 3 straight negotiations. And for what? His first CBA was a gigantic disaster while it was lauded as a win for the owners. His second CBA...was a gigantic disaster while it was lauded as a win for the owners. It isn't clear that Gary has a fundamental understanding of what he would actually need to do to make his league financially viable...after around 20 years in the commissioners chair. That makes it kind of difficult for anyone to have any faith that this third time that he's sacrificing a substatial amount of games he's actually going to get it right.

I think he's got a bigger issue if this season is lost--he may lose a portion of next year as well. With the Olympics in Russia, I think a lot of the Russian born players may be quite happy to stay home next season. And others may be happy to join them up through the Olympics. Because it turns out there is another consequence of global capitalism--the NHL has competition for players in overseas markets.

Bettman and the owners are too set on winning everything in one CBA. The smart move would be to propose a shorter CBA as an alternative and come back in 3 years and once again demand concessions of the players and get them then. The owners will eventually be in the same place they would with Bettman's proposal without the substantial loss of time.

Yes, the work stoppage is an extension of what is happening in the world. It's called capitalism.

Players, union or otherwise, are entitled to negoatiate for the best deal, same as any other economic actor. Now, if you'd like to go to a non-union league with no CBA, let's see how that would work out...

1. Top players getting an even bigger share.
2. Lesser players getting a much lower share.
3. Top teams amassing all-star squads while bottom teams scratch to survive--even worse than the present system that subsidizes the franchises not blessed to be in a market with 5 million plus potential consumers.

Let's not delude ourselves--the Jackets don't exist in a purely capitalistic market because the Jackets will never command a big TV contract in the market they are in or the other types of supplemental revenue streams that would be necessary to bring in top talent. With no draft lottery and without CBA requirements making those drafted players stay the property of their team for a period of time, the Jackets would find themselves in even worse shape. (Oh, did we also forget about the huge taxpayer subsidies that even make this team vaguely close to financially viable?)

It isn't an accident that the league with the best revenue sharing is the most competitive--the NFL. It also isn't an accident that a league with no salary cap is one of the most difficult for teams to compete--the MLB (Note, however, that those teams can be very profitable because of the benefits of the luxury tax system--there was an article a few years back showing the lowly Pirates and Marlins were turning quite a profit. Great news for the owners, not great news for the fans.) So, free markets in sports leagues are not ideal. Having a union that is insisting on more revenue sharing (gasp!) and a group of owners demanding limitations on salary is quite ideal for Jackets fans. Until, of course, one or both sides goes to far and kills the season.

It is pretty clear who the problem is and it is Gary Bettman. This incompetent boob is now 0-for-3 in CBA negotiations. He's lost significant time 3 straight negotiations. And for what? His first CBA was a gigantic disaster while it was lauded as a win for the owners. His second CBA...was a gigantic disaster while it was lauded as a win for the owners. It isn't clear that Gary has a fundamental understanding of what he would actually need to do to make his league financially viable...after around 20 years in the commissioners chair. That makes it kind of difficult for anyone to have any faith that this third time that he's sacrificing a substatial amount of games he's actually going to get it right.

I think he's got a bigger issue if this season is lost--he may lose a portion of next year as well. With the Olympics in Russia, I think a lot of the Russian born players may be quite happy to stay home next season. And others may be happy to join them up through the Olympics. Because it turns out there is another consequence of global capitalism--the NHL has competition for players in overseas markets.

Bettman and the owners are too set on winning everything in one CBA. The smart move would be to propose a shorter CBA as an alternative and come back in 3 years and once again demand concessions of the players and get them then. The owners will eventually be in the same place they would with Bettman's proposal without the substantial loss of time.

Yes, the work stoppage is an extension of what is happening in the world. It's called capitalism.

WTF are you babbling on about? I have no idea why you are rolling your eyes at me. My guess is that you pulled the norm and instead of asking what I meant by my statement(s) you just assumed you knew. You are the guy that will take a kids 5th grade report card and lay out their whole life in front of them.

Quote:

Players, union or otherwise, are entitled to negoatiate for the best deal, same as any other economic actor.

No f'ing kidding. Why you said actor is a bit baffling. If you are in a union you collectively bargain. Doesn't matter in dollars involved. Did I suggest anywhere that they didn't?

There is no such thing as a "purely capitalistic market". Where in the world did you even come up with it being a potential point of delusion?

Quote:

What the rest of the stuff you because the Jackets will never command a big TV contract in the market they are in or the other types of supplemental revenue streams that would be necessary to bring in top talent. With no draft lottery and without CBA requirements making those drafted players stay the property of their team for a period of time, the Jackets would find themselves in even worse shape. (Oh, did we also forget about the huge taxpayer subsidies that even make this team vaguely close to financially viable?)

Why did you go into this bizarre tangent? It wasn't even a point on contention.

Quote:

It isn't an accident that the league with the best revenue sharing is the most competitive--the NFL.

Do you have a memory? We've discussed the need for better revenue sharing and how that impacts potential competitive balance. Having said that, the best teams in the NFL tend to be the best teams over time and the crappy ones tend to remain crappy. There are a few exceptions, but ultimately you can't fix stupid with revenue sharing.

Quote:

It is pretty clear who the problem is and it is Gary Bettman.

There is no "the problem".

Quote:

This incompetent boob is now 0-for-3 in CBA negotiations. He's lost significant time 3 straight negotiations. And for what? His first CBA was a gigantic disaster while it was lauded as a win for the owners. His second CBA...was a gigantic disaster while it was lauded as a win for the owners. It isn't clear that Gary has a fundamental understanding of what he would actually need to do to make his league financially viable...after around 20 years in the commissioners chair. That makes it kind of difficult for anyone to have any faith that this third time that he's sacrificing a substatial amount of games he's actually going to get it right.

I'm glad you don't like Bettman. What I stated was accurate. The NHLPA is just as greedy and corrupt as Bettman and the owners of the large market teams. I have no idea why you are piggy backing this book on top of my post.

I just don't even care about the rest of what you wrote. Next time if you want to expand the conversation, quote me and respond directly to what I said, keep in on topic, and then make another post to ramble on about whatever else you want to talk about.

Ultimately little of what you posted was actually a response to what I wrote. The NLHPA hasn't proposed a solution, and as I said in many other posts, neither have the owners. They knew from day one that their "solution" wasn't going to be approved. Same from the owners. I've discussed player mobility, average contracts increases, the cap, there are more than two sides in this, etc. You took one post in a vacuum and made assumptions.

Ultimately, the large market means would like to spend whatever they want on players. The Leafs would have no problem with a 120 million dollar payroll. The NHLPA would wet themselves to have that happen. Ultimately the NHLPA wants every team to make no profit. After all profit is greed. Every dollar of profit should go to union members.

Frankly I don't give a crap what you think, but players demanding 50%+ of league wide revenue is obscene.

What I stated was accurate. The NHLPA is just as greedy and corrupt as Bettman and the owners of the large market teams.

Define "greedy"? Last I saw, one side is clearly taking a cut already (the players) and the other is not content with that, they are holding out for a bigger cut.

Quote:

The NLHPA hasn't proposed a solution, and as I said in many other posts, neither have the owners.

They knew from day one that their "solution" wasn't going to be approved. Same from the owners.

This false equivalence is hillarious. Fehr hasn't made a ton of proposals in this negotation, certainly. But what he did do when pushed was come to the table with a deal that even Bettman now agrees how far apart they are. A reasonable group of owners/commissioner would see that and go, "alright, we're X apart, let's get them to Y and call it a day." Instead, the league is being wholly unreasonable about both the amount and the contracting issues, which should be a minor concern.

To make matters worse, one of the guys leading the charge for the take no prisoners approach is none other than Craig Leipold. This is the rocket scientist who spent $200 million over the summer. On 2 players. Now suddenly he's crying poor. One of the lowest, most disengenous things I've seen. Hands these guys these contracts and apparently had his fingers crossed and now wants to grab back a portion of the contracts he offered. Nothing on the players side compares to this.

Quote:

Ultimately the NHLPA wants every team to make no profit. After all profit is greed. Every dollar of profit should go to union members.

Frankly I don't give a crap what you think, but players demanding 50%+ of league wide revenue is obscene.

Yes, the players all hope to bankrupt the entire league. Then they'll really show the owners!

Apparently you didn't pay attention to what Fehr accomplished as head of the MLBPA and neither did guys like Leipold or JPMac. To the contrary of what you are suggesting, Fehr is quite aware that teams need to make money in order to be able to spend money. If owners don't turn profits, eventually there won't be very many owners. So, while in the short run it would be great for players to make 100% of the profits, it wouldn't be a sustaining model. I'm sure Sydney Crosby would like the Penguins to exist long enough to pay him his full contract.

Which is why it was Fehr who raised revenue sharing. He was quite successful in improving the lot of the small market teams while with the MLBPA and it appears he's taking a similar approach here. So, your complaint is unfounded if not directly contradictory to all evidence available from the current negotiation.

Also, 50% revenue to compensation ratio is hardly unheard of. Most small businesses run above that (closer to 70%). Most financial institutions run above that. Fortune 500 companies that aren't financials? Maybe not, but they are at a different level than most businesses.

Sorry, as things have progressed in this negotiation it is quite clear that one side is being less reasonable by far and it is the owners led by Bettman who gets cart blanche to run this thing unless 23 teams vote him down.

Define "greedy"? Last I saw, one side is clearly taking a cut already (the players) and the other is not content with that, they are holding out for a bigger cut.

When you are asking for 50%+ (depending on proposal) of league wide revenue when your average salary has increased FAR beyond cost of living, you are a greedy ass rat *******.

I had more laid out but honestly I don't want to continue that debate. It's far removed from the CBA. I think you give far too much credit to the Fehr and, ultimately, the NHLPA and its average member. Revenue sharing is, ultimately, a mechanism to extract as much revenue out of the larger markets as it possibly can in a cap situation. It's the flavor of the day, wealth redistribution. If the cap didn't exist, there wouldn't be much talk in the way of revenue sharing. If there was it would be mainly from the owners.

The only reason Fehr gives a crap about the CBJ and anything resembling it's bottom line is so that another 20+ skaters are employed. For all that the players "gave up" the last time around, they sure are doing pretty damn well (average salary increase far, far, far, exceeds cost of living increases). This isn't the owners main business, half they league teams tend to report an operating loss, and there are always more people that want to own a sports franchise and other cities that want them. After all someone is looking to buy Phx in that crappy arena they are in and the Thrashers didn't cease to exist.

Let's also remember that players are one part of a teams payroll, so your comparison isn't entirely relevant. There are very few people that can walk into a CEO's room or to the board and demand their salary. To walk into a group and say, "unless you increase collective average salaries to beyond 3.5 million per person" is obscene. The work they do is hard, they are rare skills, and they should be compensated. I don't envy their money. But for them to suggest they are somehow being wronged with how much they are paid (not to mention they are guaranteed contracts) is beyond laughable.

I find this whole situation laughable. I find picking either the owners or players side laughable. These are rich people complaining that they need to be more rich. I make pretty decent money, but it's nothing compared to the league minimum.

You do a good job of making it seem like I am support Bettman or the owners. It could not be further from the truth. What I support is the smaller market teams, the fringe players, honoring existing contracts, closing contract loopholes, as well as player mobility.

I find this whole situation laughable. I find picking either the owners or players side laughable. These are rich people complaining that they need to be more rich. I make pretty decent money, but it's nothing compared to the league minimum.

Well, seeing as I picked a side, I hope to amuse you with my reasoning.

7 years ago the owners locked the players out until they got exactly what they wanted. It worked, eventually the players caved.

The owners then took that lesson into this year, tossed a lowball offer at the players, then locked them out when they didn't take it. The owners haven't given up anything in this, and why should they. They know no matter what comes out of this, they're getting a better deal than the last CBA. All they have to do is nothing, and they could potentially get an even better deal. They go back to that lowball and claim to actually have made concessions when you compare the current offer to it. When in fact they've gained considerably even if they walk right now with the players proposal.

If the players break again, the circle of lockouts will continue every time a CBA expires. In 7 years will 50/50 be enough? Just lock the players out, wait for their house of cards to fall, and poof, you're at 60/40. Meanwhile the fans have missed another season because the owners know they'll eventually come back.

That's why I'm cheering for the players to find their backbones. I want 7 years from now the deal to be done in July because the owners know they can't just push the players around. I want the players to know they can't push owners around. I want balance so that neither side uses a lockout or a strike to get what they want. I want both sides to respect each other. I want there to be some negotiations, some give and take on both sides, and uninterrupted hockey for the first time in decades.

Lockouts suck.
Strikes suck.

But since we're doing this now, I want the right set of circumstances to happen to hopefully prevent it from happening in the future.